With all the speculation about the potential success of the Ipad, we're seeing a lot of word mouth about this new product, from points of view emanating from all ends of the spectrum.  Not since Nostradamus put feather and quill to parchment have we had such provocative prognostication and conversation about the future; to wit, whether Jobs' new device will have the impact of Sir Isaac Newton (like, big) or Apple's Newton (tiny tiny).

And while much of the talk is about how the "marketplace" will respond to such a new product, it's easy to get over our heads quickly.  Let's not forget the "marketplace" is just a bunch of people, like you and me, who buy and use things we like and don't the things we dislike.  Following that logic, let's do our own speculation on the future success of Apple's new screen, the Ipad.

As I see it, we, human beings, not the "marketplace," today use screens in our lives to do three things: 1) Create 2) Communicate and 3) Consume.  Pick up a Best Buy circular or wander into the electronics section of any big box and you'll see no shortage of screens on sale, of all shapes, sizes and forms.

Screens for Creation:  Computers do a really good job of this, whether desktop, laptop, or netbook; computers are screens that help us make things.  Typically with keyboards, they're singularly awesome at helping us we build, write, assemble, and edit content.  They're pretty good at communicating (email, social networking, and chat) and ok at consuming (surfing the web or watching a DVD). 

Screens for Communication:  Mobile devices are really good at this, and today's smartphones are powerful in helping us reach out and stay in touch through voice, SMS and MMS, and social networks.  However, these devices typically aren't the best at creating content (ever tried to write a long email on an iPhone) or consumption (ever tried to read a book on your Blackberry?)

Screens for Consumption:  This is where it gets interesting because, to date, screens built primarily for consumption were either really big, such as your monster HDTV at home, or really small, like your Ipod nano.   Big consumption screens were made for groups of people to experience the content together, primarily video, and small screens were primarily for individuals to consume music first, with video as an afterthought.  And here is where Mr. Jobs has laid his bet...we will want to consume all types of content, including content that has sight, sound and motion, personally. 

We consistently hear of Ipad users marveling about the device's immersive, incredible capability to experience content, whether it's movies, books, photos or the web.  This is where the Ipad seems to shine brightest; it's a phenomenal personal consumption device first and foremost, that allows you to communicate (email, social networking, but not phone); however, it's not a very good creation device (no camera, virtual keyboard, limited storage, etc.) because that's not its focus.  We've never seen a device that emphasizes personal consumption in a way the Ipad does, which is why it's revolutionary and, I speculate, while it will be a runaway success.



How might we measure this success, you may ask?  Enter the (not yet industry standard) Kissel Formula for Word of Mouth Capability (The KFWOMC).  This highly scientific (ha!) formula stipulates that a product's ultimate success (PS) is dependent on how highly and smartly marketed a product is (M), multiplied by whether the product Sucks (-) or is Cool (+), which directly correlates to its Word of Mouth and whether people will talk about and make the product successful.  I would imagine the equation would look something like this:


In practice, and without a tremendous amount of intensive regression, the formula could help us explain disasters like the movie Waterworld and New Coke (both highly marketed but sucked), and runaway successes like sliced bread (high "cool" factor for the time) and the mobile phone.  Ok, so looking back is always easy, but what about the formula's predictive capability?
 
Looking forward, and using the above formula, the Ipad will do well...highly marketed, great story, very cool, leading to positive word of mouth, leading to product success (hey, over 500,000 sold already!)  The formula, however, does not bode well for Baltic evening wear becoming the next fashion trend, nor for any future entertainment vehicles that include Janeane Garofalo.  In regards to Apple's newest innovation, only time will tell on how successfully this new device can impact the future of how we create, communicate and consume content.




Permalink 1 | TrackBacks (0) |

If you pay much attention to the marketing industry's trends, you no doubt have observed the rapid emergence of social media as a marketing communications channel.  If you're a marketer, you know social media and driving intentional, positive online conversation about your brand is important, and needs to be part of your marketing mix.  But, like any emerging discipline, it can be hard to know how best to "use" social media and, importantly, assess whether your efforts are wildly successful, a complete waste of time, effort and money, or somewhere in the middle.

Don't worry, the problem isn't you.  It's the metric, or rather, up until now, the lack thereof.  While we're learning each day about the growing popularity, pervasiveness and influence of social media, we're also working to figure out the best performance metrics to measure its impact.  And we're getting better every day.

Established, accepted metrics are critical in any industry because they both declare a benchmark for relative performance and focus resources around what's important.  In essence, they put a value on what's valuable.  You are what you measure.  Mutual Fund managers have the Annualized Rate of Return, CEO's have EBITA and enterprise value, Network Television Executives have audience ratings, and so on.  Heck, even NFL head coaches have performance metrics; net points scored per game, and games won over a season (Are you listening, Lovie Smith?).  The important thing is that once performance metrics are established and accepted for a discipline, all energy then gets focused on gaming the metric.  And that's a good thing.

The recent announcement of Zócalo Group's Digital Footprint Index is a giant step (pun not intended) in the right direction.  On an overall basis, the DFI quantifies, at a given point in time, the overall volume of a brand's earned online presence.  The DFI's key components, Height (amount of brand conversation), Width (how widely those conversations are shared) and Depth (the tone and sentiment of the brand's conversation) serve to put an important stake in the ground for industry.  But does the DFI put a value on what's valuable?  You be the judge.  For any brand (and its competitors), wouldn't you want to know:

•    How much that brand is being talked about in earned conversation?
•    If those brand conversations are being passed along?
•    If those brand conversations are positive or negative, on message or off?

So with the Digital Footprint Index established, the imperative becomes clear.  We need to game the metrics.  We need to create more earned conversation for the brand, work to have those conversations more widely shared, and ensure those conversations are increasingly positive and intentional.  Those are pretty good metrics to game.

We know the debate about what social media metrics are most appropriate is long from over and rightly so; with new channels for digital conversation being brought forth all the time, a metric is only as good as its ability to quantify all that's relevant and valuable.  But the Digital Footprint Index is a quantum leap (pun intended) from what has been previously available and, we hope, spurs even more discussion around this subject.
 
To paraphrase Albert Einstein, "Sometimes what counts can't be counted." For those of us who endeavor to use social media to drive brand conversation and recommendations, we're getting closer to the day when we'll have agreement on both what and how to count.  And when that day arrives, there will likely be no formal celebration or even recognition of that agreement, because we'll all be too busy that day, working to game those metrics.



Permalink 1 | TrackBacks (0) |

Listen to business professionals talk enough, and you'll hear them speak about the "marketplace" as though it is an actual, geographical place where goods and services are bought and sold. You'll then hear them talk about today's marketplace being a "global" one, meaning apparently that this place exists all over the world. Really? While the idea that the marketplace being an actual, single place may have been true a couple thousand years ago (images of a noisy, colorful bazaar come to mind), today that description not only misses the mark; it cripples us in our capacity to move our enterprises forward.

Why?

Because the marketplace is not a PLACE; it's a thing.And that thing is a discussion; a series of ongoing, organic, and evolving conversations happening everywhere in real time.The marketplace is the sum total of the conversations around offers...offers about businesses and brands...offers made and either accepted, rejected, or countered. Maybe a better description for it would be the market discussion?

The sooner we understand buying decisions are made through conversations and word of mouth, not at a place, the better we'll be at listening, noticing, and observing those conversations. Whether they take place in online social networks, or offline at the grocery store check out, it is those conversations, one by one, that form the market discussion, and in so doing move the global economy.

Permalink 1 | TrackBacks (0) |